Case - River Watch versus Harrison Holdings ~ Violations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

8/9/2019 Case - River Watch versus Harrison Holdings ~ Violations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

1/41


2/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, Restitution and Remediation 2

Intent to File Suit (hereafter, RCRA NOTICE), attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made part o

these pleadings.

2. As described in the RCRA NOTICE and below, PLAINTIFF alleges DEFENDANT

are in violation of a permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order whic

has become effective pursuant to the RCRA [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6924, 4

U.S.C. 6925; 42 U.S.C. 6945.]

3. As described in the RCRA NOTICE and below, PLAINTIFF alleges DEFENDANT

to be past or present generators, past or present transporters, or past or present owners or operato

of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility, which has contributed or which is contributing to the pa

or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of a solid or hazardous wast

which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. [4

U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6924, 42 U.S.C. 6925; 42 U.S.C. 6945.]

4. PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief to prohibit future violations, th

imposition of civil penalties, and other relief for DEFENDANTS violations of standards an

regulations set forth in the RCRA applicable to the use and storage of petroleum pollutants, tox

metals such as lead and other pollutants, and for DEFENDANTS violation of the RCRA

prohibition against creating an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or th

environment.

5. RCRA Section 3005, 42 U.S.C. 6925, requires facilities to obtain permits for th

handling, storage, treatment, transportation and/or disposal of hazardous waste.

6. RCRA Section 3004, 42 U.S.C. 6924, requires owners and operators of hazardou

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to follow enumerated standards. These requiremen

are enumerated in 40 C.F.R. Part 264 and include requirements for General Facility Standard

(Subpart B), Preparedness and Prevention (Subpart C), Contingency Plans and Emergenc

Procedures (Subpart D), Releases from Solid Waste Management Units (Subpart F), Closure an

Post-Closure (Subpart G), Financial Requirements (Subpart H), Surface Impoundments (Subpa


3/41


4/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


10. PLAINTIFF seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief to prohibit future violations, th

imposition of civil penalties, and other relief for DEFENDANTS violations of the CWA.

II. PARTIES

11. PLAINTIFF, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, is a 501(c)(3) non-prof

public benefit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California, wi

headquarters and main office located at 500 North Main Street, Suite 110, Sebastopol, Sonom

County, California. PLAINTIFF is dedicated to protect, enhance and help restore the surface an

subsurface waters of Northern California. PLAINTIFFs members live in Northern California an

in Marin County where the Site under DEFENDANTS operation and/or control, identified in th

RCRA NOTICE and CWA NOTICE and below, which is the subject of this Complaint, is locate

PLAINTIFFs members live nearby to waters affected by DEFENDANTS illegal discharges a

alleged in this Complaint. PLAINTIFFs members have interests in the watersheds which are o

may be adversely affected by DEFENDANTS violations of the RCRA and the CWA as alleged

this Complaint. Said members use the effected waters and watershed areas for domestic wate

recreation, sports, fishing, swimming, hiking, photography, nature walks, religious, spiritual an

shamanic practices, and the like. Furthermore, the relief sought will redress the injury in fact

PLAINTIFF and its members, the likelihood of future injury and interference with the interests o

said members.

12. Defendant, HARRISON HOLDINGS LLC (formerly PSH LLC), is a limited liabili

corporation registered with the State of California with administrative offices located in the Count

of Marin, State of California. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on such information an

belief alleges that HARRISON HOLDINGS LLC is and was at all times relevant to this Complain

the owner and/or operator of the real property on which the Site identified in this Complaint

situated.

13. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges th

DEFENDANTS named herein as DOES 1 - 30, Inclusive, respectively, are persons, partnership

corporations or entities, who are, or were, responsible for, or in some way contributed to, th


5/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


violations which are the subject of this Complaint or are, or were, responsible for the maintenanc

supervision, management, operations, or insurance coverage of DEFENDANTS Site or operation

on that Site as identified herein. The names, identities, capacities, or functions of DEFENDANT

named herein as DOES 1 - 30, Inclusive are presently unknown to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF sha

seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names of said DOES Defendants whe

the same have been ascertained.

III. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by RCRA 7002(a)(1), 4

U.S.C. 6972(a)(1), which states in part, . . . any person may commence a civil action on his ow

behalf (A) against any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of any permit, standar

regulation, condition requirement , prohibition or order which has become effective pursuant to th

chapter, or (B) against any person . . . who has contributed or who is contributing to the past o

present handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of any solid or hazardous wast

which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.

15. PLAINTIFFs members reside in the vicinity of, derive livelihoods from, own proper

near, or recreate on, in or near or otherwise use, enjoy and benefit from the watersheds, land, river

and associated natural resources into which DEFENDANTS pollute, or by which DEFENDANTS

operations adversely affect those members interests, in violation of RCRA 7002(a)(1)(A), 4

U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A) and RCRA 7002 (a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B). The healt

economic, recreational, aesthetic or environmental interests of PLAINTIFF and its members ha

been, is being, and will continue to be adversely affected by DEFENDANTS unlawful violation

as alleged herein. PLAINTIFF contends there exists an injury in fact, causation of that injury by th

DEFENDANTS complained of conduct herein, and a likelihood that the requested relief wi

redress that injury.

16. Pursuant to RCRA 7002(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6972(2)(A), PLAINTIFF gave statutor

notice of the RCRA violations alleged in this Complaint prior to the commencement of this lawsu

by way of the RCRA NOTICE to: (a) DEFENDANTS, (b) the United States Environment


6/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Protection Agency, both Federal and Regional, (c) the State of California Water Resources Contro

Board, and (d) the solid waste management agency for the State of California - Integrated Wast

Management Board.

17. Pursuant to RCRA 7002(a) and (b), 42 U.S.C. 6972(a) and (b), venue lies in th

District as the Site and facility and operations thereon under DEFENDANTS ownership or contr

and where illegal activities occurred which are the source of the violations complained of in th

action, are located within this District.

18. Subject matter jurisdiction is also conferred upon this Court by CWA 505(a)(1), 3

U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), which states in part that, any citizen may commence a civil action on his ow

behalf against any person . . . .who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard o

limitation . . . . or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standar

or limitation. For purposes of Section 505, the term citizen means a person or persons havin

an interest which is or may be adversely affected.

19. PLAINTIFFs members reside in the vicinity of, derive livelihoods from, own proper

near, or recreate on, in or near or otherwise use, enjoy and benefit from the watersheds, land, river

and associated natural resources into which DEFENDANTS pollute, or by which DEFENDANTS

operations adversely affect the interests of PLAINTIFF and its members in violation of CWA

301(a), 33 U.S.C.1311(a), CWA 505(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), CWA 402, 33 U.S.C

1342. The health, economic, recreational, aesthetic and environmental interests of PLAINTIFF an

its members may be, have been, are being, and will continue to be adversely affected b

DEFENDANTS unlawful violations as alleged in this Complaint. PLAINTIFF contends ther

exists an injury in fact to PLAINTIFF and its members, causation of that injury by DEFENDANTS

complained of conduct, and a likelihood that the requested relief will redress that injury.

20. Pursuant to CWA 505(b)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C.1365(b)(1)(A), PLAINTIFF gav

statutory notice of the CWA violations alleged in this Complaint to: (a) DEFENDANTS, (b) th

United States EPA, Federal and Regional, and (c) the State of California Water Resources Contr

Board.


7/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


21. Pursuant to CWA 505(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1365(c)(3), a copy of this Complaint ha

been served on the United States Attorney General and the Administrator of the federal EPA.

22. Pursuant to CWA 505(c)(1), 33 U.S.C. 1365(c)(1), venue lies in this District a

the Site under DEFENDANTS operation and/or control, and where illegal discharges occurred

which is the source of the violations complained of in this action, is located within this District.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

23. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on said information and belief alleges th

DEFENDANTS are past or present generators, past or present transporters, or past or present owne

and/or operators of the Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE, and have contributed o

are contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal sol

or hazardous waste which may present an imminent or substantial endangerment to health or th

environment. Furthermore, DEFENDANTS handling, use, transport, treatment, storage or dispos

of waste at the Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE has violated and continues t

violate permits, standards, regulations, conditions, requirements or prohibitions effective pursuan

to the RCRA regarding hazardous or solid waste. [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A) and (B)

DEFENDANTS have no RCRA-authorized permits authorizing the activities related to solid o

hazardous wastes described in the RCRA NOTICE.

24. Regulatory agencies have designated surface waters and groundwater in the Mar

County area of California as capable of supporting multiple beneficial uses including domestic wat

supply, and have established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Water Qualit

Objectives (WQOs) for these pollutants in surface and ground waters.

25. The pollutants identified in the RCRA NOTICE are known carcinogens o

reproductive toxins, and have been listed chemicals under Proposition 65. Surface waters an

groundwater at and around the Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE are potenti

sources of drinking water under applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Plans (aka Basi

Plans). PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on said information and belief alleges, th

DEFENDANTS, in the course of doing business, have discharged petroleum pollutants, toxic meta


8/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and other pollutants to surface waters and groundwater at and around said Site and facility a

discussed in the RCRA NOTICE.

26. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on said information and belief alleges, th

DEFENDANTS handling, use, transport, treatment, storage or disposal of pollutants at the Site an

facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE has occurred in a manner which has allowed significan

quantities of solid or hazardous constituents to be discharged to soil, groundwater and surface wate

beneath and around the Site and beneath and around adjacent properties off site. PLAINTIFF

further informed and believes, and on said information and belief alleges that to date, the levels o

pollutants remain high above the allowable MCLs or WQOs for said constituents, creating a

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment.

27. PLAINTIFF alleges that the activities of DEFENDANTS as alleged in the RCR

NOTICE have been both knowing and/or intentional; that DEFENDANTS have discharged, or ar

intentionally and illegally continuing to discharge solid or hazardous waste in violation of th

RCRA. DEFENDANTS have known of the contamination at the Site identified in the RCR

NOTICE for at least 5 or more years, or are also aware that continuing discharges or failure t

properly remediate the pollution allows the contamination to migrate through the ground

groundwater at or adjacent to said Site, or to continually contaminate or re-contaminate actual o

potential sources of drinking water as well as groundwater or surface waters.

28. Violations of the RCRA as alleged in this Complaint are a major cause of th

continuing decline in water quality, or a continuing threat to existing or future drinking wat

supplies in California. With every discharge, groundwater and surface water supplies a

contaminated. These discharges can or must be controlled in order for the groundwater and surfac

water supply to be returned as a safe source of drinking water.

29. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on said information and belief alleges th

DEFENDANTS are discharging pollutants found at the Site identified in EXHIBIT A from the Si

and various point sources within the Site to waters of the United States.


9/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


30. The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. The statute

structured in such a way that all discharge of pollutants is prohibited with the exception of sever

enumerated statutory exceptions. One such exception authorizes a polluter who has been issued

NPDES permit pursuant to the Act, to discharge designated pollutants at certain levels subject t

certain conditions. Without an NPDES permit all surface and subsurface discharges b

DEFENDANTS from the Site identified in the CWA NOTICE to waters of the United States ar

illegal.

31. PLAINTIFF is informed or believes and on such information and believes alleges th

DEFENDANTS have no NPDES permit allowing them to discharge pollutants from the Sit

identified in the CWA NOTICE to waters of the United States as required by CWA 301(a), 3

U.S.C. 1311(a) and CWA 402(a) and 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a) and 1342(b) as well a

CWA 402(p), 33 U.S.C. 1342(p). The Act prohibits storm water discharges without a permit (3

U.S.C. 1342; 40 CFR 122.26).

32. The liability of the DEFENDANTS stems from their ownership or operation of th

Site or due to the activities conducted on the Site by DEFENDANTS, their subsidiaries, contractor

employees or agents.

33. The CWA is a strict liability statute with a five year statute of limitations. The rang

of dates covered by the CWA NOTICE is the five year statute of limitations as discussed therein

34. The majority of the violations identified in the CWA NOTICE such as dischargin

pollutants to waters of the United States without a NPDES permit, failure to obtain a NPDES permi

failure to implement the requirements of the Act, failure to meet water quality objectives, etc., ar

continuous, and therefore each day is a violation. PLAINTIFF alleges that all violations set fort

in the CWA NOTICE are continuing in nature or will likely continue after the filing of a lawsui

Specific dates of violations are evidenced in DEFENDANTS own records (or lack thereof) or file

and records of other agencies including the Regional Quality Control Board, GeoTracker, Coun

Health and local police and fire departments.


10/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Any Permit, Standard, Regulation, Condition, Requirement, Prohibitioor Order [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A)]

PLAINTIFF incorporates the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 34 and th

RCRA NOTICE as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFF is informed or believes, and base

on such information or belief alleges as follows:

35. RCRA 7002(a)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A) provides that any person ma

commence a civil action against any person or governmental entity alleged to be in violation of an

permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has becom

effective pursuant to the RCRA. Civil penalties may be assessed against any person or entity in

violation of such permits, etc. pursuant to the RCRA under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6928 (

or (g).

36. DEFENDANTS have failed to comply with the statutory or regulatory preventio

detection, monitoring, or remediation requirements imposed under the RCRA or described in th

RCRA NOTICE.

37. DEFENDANTS have no permit issued under the RCRA or by the state of Californ

for the use, handling, storage, transportation, disposal or treatment of hazardous or solid waste

the Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE.

38. DEFENDANTS operations at the Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTIC

include unlawful open dumping as that term is used in the RCRA, by discharging petroleum

pollutants, including toxic metals such as lead to the open ground, thereby allowing these pollutan

to discharge to both groundwater or surface waters. The Site identified in the RCRA NOTICE doe

not qualify as a landfill under 42 U.S.C. 6944, nor does it qualify as a facility for the disposal o

solid or hazardous waste.

39. DEFENDANTS are in violation of Subtitle C of the RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq

(aka subchapter III) by failing to properly: identify, label or list hazardous materials; keep record

of their hazardous waste activities including their use, handling, storage, transportation or treatmen


11/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


of hazardous or solid waste; take proper measures to protect human health or the environmen

monitor their activities; or, acquire RCRA-authorized permits with respect to the same.

40. DEFENDANTS have in the past or are knowingly now transporting, treating, storin

disposing of or exporting hazardous waste identified or listed under RCRA Subtitle C, thereb

placing persons in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

41. Information currently available to PLAINTIFF indicates that DEFENDANTS

violation of any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which ha

become effective pursuant to RCRA 7002(a)(1)(A) has occurred every day since at least Januar

1, 2005, or on numerous separate occasions, and that those violations are continuing.

42. The continuing activities by DEFENDANTS as alleged herein irreparably harm

PLAINTIFF and its members, for which harm PLAINTIFF and its members have no plain, speed

or adequate remedy at law.

Wherefore, PLAINTIFF prays judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth hereafter.

VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Imminent and Substantial Endangerment to Health or to the Environment[42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B)]

PLAINTIFF incorporate the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 42 and th

RCRA NOTICE as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFF is informed or believes, and base

on such information and belief alleges as follows:

43. RCRA 7002(a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B), provides that any person ma

commence a civil action against any person or governmental entity including a past or prese

generator, transporter, owner or operator of a treatment, storage or disposal facility who ha

contributed to the past or present storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid o

hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or to th

environment. Civil penalties may be assessed against any person or entity in violation of this sectio

under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6928 (a) or (g).

44. The pollutants identified in this Complaint and the RCRA NOTICE are know

carcinogens or reproductive toxins, or when released into the environment in sufficient quantity pos


12/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


an imminent or substantial risk to public health or to the environment in general. PLAINTIFF

informed or believes and on such information and belief alleges that amounts of petroleu

pollutants, lead and other toxic metals used, handled, stored, transported, disposed of or treated b

DEFENDANTS is in sufficient quantity to pose an imminent or substantial risk to both th

environment or to human health.

45. DEFENDANTS are past or present generators, past or present transporters, or past o

present owners or operators of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility, which has contributed or

contributing to the past or present storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid o

hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or th

environment.

46. DEFENDANTS are in violation of RCRA Subtitle C (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (ak

subchapter III) by failing to properly: identify, label or list hazardous materials; keep records of the

hazardous waste activities including their use, hauling, storage, transportation or treatment o

hazardous or solid waste; take proper measures to protect human health or the environment; monito

their activities; or, acquire RCRA-authorized permits with regard to the same. DEFENDANTS

violations of RCRA Subtitle C may create and do create imminent and substantial risk to both th

environment or to human health.

47. DEFENDANTS knowing transport, treatment, storage, disposal or exporting o

hazardous waste identified or listed under RCRA Subtitle C places persons in imminent danger o

death or serious bodily injury.

48. Continuing acts or failure to act by DEFENDANTS to address these violations of th

RCRA will irreparably harm PLAINTIFF and its members for which harm PLAINTIFF and i

members have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.


//

//

//


13/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


VII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Any Permit, Standard, Regulation, Condition, Requirement, Prohibitionor Order [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A)]; Imminent and Substantial Endangerment tHealth or to the Environment [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B)] specifically: Violation oProcedural and Substantive Requirements of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924)


RCRA NOTICE as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFF is informed or believes, and on suc

information and belief alleges as follows:

49. DEFENDANTS have not complied with any of the procedural and substantiv

requirements of the RCRA pursuant to RCRA 3004, 42 U.S.C. 6924. These requirements a

enumerated in 40 C.F.R. Part 264 , and include requirements for General Facility Standard

(Subpart B), Preparedness and Prevention (Subpart C), Contingency Plans and Emergenc

Procedures (Subpart D), Releases from Solid Waste Management Units (Subpart F), Closure an

Post-Closure (Subpart G), Financial Requirements (Subpart H), Surface Impoundments (Subpa

K), Waste Piles (Subpart L), Land Treatment (Subpart M), Landfills (Subpart N), and Miscellaneou

Units (Subpart X). DEFENDANTS failure to comply with these requirements is a violation o

RCRA 3004, 42 U.S.C. 6924.


handling, treatment, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of their solid or hazardous waste i

violation of RCRA 3004 has occurred every day since at least January 1, 2005, or on numerou

separate occasions, and, that those violations are continuing.





//

//

//


14/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


VIII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Any Permit, Standard, Regulation, Condition, Requirement, Prohibitionor Order [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A)]; Imminent and Substantial Endangerment tHealth or to the Environment [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B)] specifically Non-permitteHandling, Treatment, Storage, Transportation and/or Disposal of Solid or Hazardou

Waste (42 U.S.C. 6925)




52. DEFENDANTS deposition and maintenance of solid or hazardous waste as describe

herein causes and has caused the generation and discharge to the environment of solid or hazardou

waste.

53. DEFENDANTS have installed and maintained a system of conveyances to dispos

of solid or hazardous generated and released from the Site and facility identified in the RCR

NOTICE.

54. DEFENDANTS do not possess permits authorized under the RCRA for the handlin

storage, treatment, transportation, and/or disposal of their solid or hazardous or solid waste at th

Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE, in violation of RCRA 3005, 42 U.S.C. 692


handling, treatment, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of their solid or hazardous waste i

violation of RCRA 3004 has occurred every day since at least January 1, 2005, or on numerou

separate occasions, and, that those violations are continuing.


PLAINTIFF and its members, for which harm PLAINTIFF has no plain, speedy or adequate remed

at law.


//

//

//


15/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


IX. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Any Permit, Standard, Regulation, Condition, Requirement, Prohibitionor Order [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A)]; Imminent and Substantial Endangerment tHealth or to the Environment [42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(B)] specifically: ProhibitioAgainst Open Dumping (42 U.S.C. 6945)




57. DEFENDANTS have engaged in open dumping by their discharge of solid o

hazardous waste to open ground where it will contaminate and has contaminated the soil

groundwater and surface waters as described herein and in the RCRA NOTICE.

58. DEFENDANTS Site and facility identified in the RCRA NOTICE does not quali

as a landfill under 42 U.S.C. 6944 and does not qualify as a facility for the disposal of solid o

hazardous waste.

59. DEFENDANTS have no RCRA-authorized permit for disposal, storage or treatme

of solid or hazardous waste of the type currently and historically discharged at the identified Sit

60. Information currently available to PLAINTIFF indicates that DEFENDANTS ope

dumping in violation of RCRA 4005 has occurred every day since at least January 1, 2005, or o

numerous separate occasions, and, that those violations are continuing.





X. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Discharge of Pollutants from a Point Source Must be Regulated by a NPDES Permi[33 U.S.C. 1342 (a) and 1342 (b), 33 U.S.C. 1311]

PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 throug

61 above, including EXHIBITS A and B, as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFF is informe

or believes, and on such information and belief alleges as follows:


16/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


62. DEFENDANTS have violated and continue to violate the CWA as evidenced by th

discharges of pollutants from a point source without a NPDES permit in violation of CWA 30

33 U.S.C. 1311.

63. The violations of DEFENDANTS are ongoing and will continue after the filing of th

Complaint. PLAINTIFF alleges herein all violations which may have occurred or will occur prio

to trial, but for which data may not have been available or submitted or apparent from the face o

the reports or data submitted by DEFENDANTS to the Regional Water Quality Control Board o

to PLAINTIFF prior to the filing of this Complaint. PLAINTIFF will amend this Complaint

necessary to address DEFENDANTS State and Federal violations which may occur after the filin

of this Complaint. Each of DEFENDANTS violations is a separate violation of the CWA.

64. PLAINTIFF is informed or believes and on such belief alleges that without th

imposition of appropriate civil penalties and the issuance of appropriate equitable relie

DEFENDANTS will continue to violate the CWA as well as State and Federal standards wit

respect to the enumerated discharges and releases complained of herein and in the CWA NOTICE

PLAINTIFF is informed or believes and on such belief alleges that the relief requested in th

Complaint will redress the injury to PLAINTIFF and its members, prevent future injury, and prote

the interests of PLAINTIFF and its members which interests are or may be adversely affected b

DEFENDANTS' violations of the CWA, as well as other State and Federal standards.

XI. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Discharge of Stormwater or Stormwater Containing Pollutants Without a NPDEPermit or in Violations of the California General Stormwater Permit [33 U.S.C. 1342(p)]

PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 throug

64 above, including EXHIBITS A and B, as though fully set forth herein. PLAINTIFF is informe

or believes, and on such information and belief alleges as follows:

65. DEFENDANTS do not comply with CWA 402(p) which requires dischargers to

acquire a NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater or to file for coverage under California


17/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


General Industrial Storm Water Permit (General Permit) as more fully described in the CWA

NOTICE.

66. The General Permit prohibits discharges of storm water contaminated with industri

pollutants, which are not otherwise regulated by a NPDES permit, to storm sewer systems or water

of the United States.

67. DEFENDANTS have violated and continue to violate the CWA and the Gener

Permit as evidenced by the discharges of storm water containing pollutants to affected water bodie

as identified and described in the CWA NOTICE, in violation of CWA 301 and CWA 402(p

Any violations of the General Permit are violations of the Act. The violations of DEFENDANT

are ongoing and will continue after the filing of this Complaint.

68. PLAINTIFF is informed or believes and on such information alleges that without th

imposition of appropriate civil penalties and the issuance of appropriate equitable relie

DEFENDANTS will continue to violate the CWA as well as State and Federal standards wit

respect to the enumerated discharges and releases identified in the CWA NOTICE. PLAINTIF

is informed or believes and on such information alleges that the relief requested in this Complain

will redress the injury to PLAINTIFF and its members, prevent future injury, and protect th

interests of PLAINTIFF and its members, which interests are or may be adversely affected b

DEFENDANTS violations of the CWA, as well as other State and Federal standards.

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PLAINTIFF prays this Court grant the following relief:

1. Declare DEFENDANTS to have violated or to be in violation of the RCRA;

2. Enjoin DEFENDANTS from continued violations of the RCRA;

3. Declare DEFENDANTS to have violated or to be in violation of the CWA;

4. Enjoin DEFENDANTS from continued violations of the CWA;

5. Order DEFENDANTS to fully investigate the Site and facility identified in the RCR

NOTICE including the following:


18/41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


a. Comprehensive Sensitive Receptor Survey - A comprehensive sensitive recepto

survey which will include an aquifer profile, surface water study, water supply survey, and buildin

survey.

b. Aquifer Profile Study - Aquifer profiles identifying all water bearing strata an

communication with other aquifers. Testing of all aquifers which are determined to be i

communication with the surface unconfined aquifer and contaminated zones for all known pollutan

at the Site.

c. Conduit/preferential Pathway Study - A conduit/preferential pathway stud

identifying all conduits or preferential pathways such as sand and gravel lenses, utilities, road

services and other potential pathways for pollution migration, as well as testing of all conduits an

preferential pathways found to have intersected the plume for all pollutants at the Site.

d. Identification and Testing of Water Supply Wells - A door to door survey to b

conducted of potentially affected properties to determine the presence and location of any wate

supply wells (permitted or not); and, testing for any water supply wells found to contain pollutant

e. Surface Water Survey - A study determining if any surface waters have bee

contaminated or have the potential of being contaminated by the pollutants at the Site; said stud

to include testing of all surface waters and drainage within 1,500 feet of the outer extent of th

plume.

f. Vapor Int rusion Study - A vapor intrusion study of the buildings at the Site an

buildings located on or off-site within the contaminated zone.

g. Determination of Mass of Plume Constituents - Determination of mass of the plum

and masses of the various pollutants at the Site whether or not part of the plume, such as lead

h. Toxic Metal Reasonable Potential Analysis - A toxic metals study which wi

include all metals with a reasonable potential of being contaminants at the Site, such as lead.

6. Order DEFENDANTS to fully remediate the Site reducing all contaminants of concer

in groundwater to below WQOs within a period of five (5) years;


19/41


20/41


21/41


22/41


23/41


24/41


25/41


26/41


27/41


28/41


29/41


30/41


31/41


32/41


33/41


34/41


35/41


36/41


37/41


38/41


39/41


40/41


41/41

Documents

Case - River Watch versus Harrison Holdings ~ Violations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act